Thanks again.
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Erick Erickson
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org; sol myr
> Cc:
> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 7:18 PM
> Subject: Re: performance question - number of documents
>
> "Why would it matter...top 5 mat
Thanks again.
- Original Message -
From: Erick Erickson
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org; sol myr
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: performance question - number of documents
"Why would it matter...top 5 matches" Because Lucene has to calculate
the
This may not be directly relevant to Lucene, but I wanted to learn:
How does a web search engine do something like this.
Do they also "score every matching document on every query" OR
do they pick a subset first based on some static/offlline ranking criteria
then do what Lucene does OR
do they sea
"Why would it matter...top 5 matches" Because Lucene has to calculate
the score of all documents in order to insure that it returns those 5 documents.
What if the very last document scored was the most relevant?
Best
Erick
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 3:06 PM, sol myr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We've noticed s
Thank you for the reply, if you need more info to understand the question,
I'll try to be as prompt as possible.
> -if i search on last week's index and the individual index (this needs to
be
> opened at search request!?) will it be faster than using a single huge
index
> for all groups, for all w
Searching billions of anything is likely to be challenging. Mark
Miller's document at
http://www.lucidimagination.com/content/scaling-lucene-and-solr looks
well worth a read.
> -if i search on last week's index and the individual index (this needs to be
> opened at search request!?) will it be fas
t: Re: Performance question
> Does it matter what order I add the sub-queries to the BooleanQuery Q.
> That is, is the execution speed for the search faster (slower) if I
do:
> Q.add(Q1, BooleanClause.Occur.MUST);
> Q.add(Q2, BooleanClause.Occur.MUST);
>
> Does it matter what order I add the sub-queries to the BooleanQuery Q.
> That is, is the execution speed for the search faster (slower) if I do:
> Q.add(Q1, BooleanClause.Occur.MUST);
> Q.add(Q2, BooleanClause.Occur.MUST);
> Q.add(Q3, BooleanClause.Occur.MUST);
index?
Thanks
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Yonik Seeley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12 November 2005 01:39
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Performance Question
Look at IndexReader.open()
It actually uses a MultiReader if there are multiple segments.
-Yonik
Now hiring
Look at IndexReader.open()
It actually uses a MultiReader if there are multiple segments.
-Yonik
Now hiring -- http://forms.cnet.com/slink?231706
On 11/11/05, Charles Lloyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You should run your own tests, but I found the MultiReader to be slower
> than a regular IndexR
You should run your own tests, but I found the MultiReader to be slower
than a regular IndexReader. I was running on a dual-cpu box and two
separate disk drives.
Charles.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For addit
The IndexSearcher(MultiReader) will be faster (it's what's used for
indicies with multiple segments too).
-Yonik
Now hiring -- http://forms.cnet.com/slink?231706
On 11/11/05, Mike Streeton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have several indexes I want to search together. What performs better a
> sing
12 matches
Mail list logo
